44 comments:

The New York Timesis already warning Gillibrand to fall in line on the guns issue or be destroyed. And since the Times is published by Pinch Sulzberger, AKA Caroline Kennedy's illicit squeeze, you can bet the knives will be out.

The New York Times is already warning Gillibrand to fall in line on the guns issue or be destroyed. And since the Times is published by Pinch Sulzberger, AKA Caroline Kennedy's illicit squeeze, you can bet the knives will be out.

Doesn't matter. The people who really care about increasing gun control aren't the ones setting the agenda these days, and if the NY Times starts hassling Gillibrand as a proxy for Kennedy, you can bet that lots of other nasty stuff about Kennedy and Sulzberger will come out through other media sources.

Already, I see that there's an article in the NY Post about how Caroline Kennedy was nasty and disrespectful to Gov. Paterson. You know who will respond badly to reports that Kennedy treated Paterson with disrespect? African-American Democrats. Which bloc of voters is the best one to have on your side in a primary if you are a Democrat? African-American Democrats. If Gillibrand and Paterson team up vs. the Kennedys and the possibly-soon-to-be-bankrupt NY Times in a statewide (not Manhattan-only) race, I'd bet on Gillibrand and Paterson.

But what do I know about NY politics, I'm just a simple country lawyer from Texas. Oh, and yeah, I'm back from the inauguration. It was a blast.

Maybe I'm alone here, but I liked Tracy Flick. Her only real personal failing is that she feels entitled to the job she's running for, and to me that's offset by the fact that she's both the most-qualified candidate and the only one who actually wants to do the job.

Sure, she's emotionally damaged. When you consider that she's surrounded by adults who are trying to destroy her, fuck her, or use her as a vessel for all their failed dreams, that isn't too surprising.

As a teacher, I would really feel for a student like that and wish I could find a way to help her relate to other students better. But I wouldn't worry too much. I'd figure in the long run, she'll get somewhere very competitive and do quite well. In the mindset of the movie, you're supposed to hate her precisely because she will win in the end in this terrible competitive world.

"Gillibrand strikes me as the kind of Democrat we churn out by the dozen in Louisiana. She's a lot like John Breaux and Mary Landrieu."

Well can you turn the machines up to 11 and start churning them out faster? We need more of them. Uh, but do the same machines make the "Ray Nagin" model Democrat? Can you make sure that setting is turned off?

"I've always been curious: why do "progressives" hate guns so much? How is opposition to public ownership of guns a "liberal" position?"

Why? Because they have slowly through osmosis absorbed the ideology of the Frankfort School and its long march through the institutions, whose formula of combining Marxism and Freudian conditioning techniques has been staggeringly successful.

That's why they reflexively come down on the side of every tin pot leftist dictator and against every traditional classical liberal position. That's why they long for America's defeat in war. That's why America is always mentioned in disparagement, and that's why everything is America's fault. That's why the Palestinian psychopaths and their culture of death and squalor is championed and the civilized and prosperous Israelis are demonized. And on and on down the list.

People on the right question the logic of so called liberals all the time, but it has nothing to do with logic. Rather they must be understood in terms of being subjected to and succumbing to a very seductive brainwashing by the Marxist Socialist enemies of our capitalist democratic system.

At the heart of the technique is an imbuing of a supreme sense of moral and intellectual superiority.Entirely unearned I might add, as our liberal friends are amongst the most narcissistic, craven, and cowardly weaklings one can imagine.

Once they are seen through this template everything they do or say is utterly predictable, as they are simply creatures of psychological conditioning, with not an original thought or impulse in their heads. That's why they adhere so feverishly to orthodoxy and groupthink. They NEVER surprise me and I can accurately predict their response in any situation, every time.

I've always been curious: why do "progressives" hate guns so much? How is opposition to public ownership of guns a "liberal" position?

Because "Progressives" (regressives) have adopted a philosophy that at it's core requires non-violence. They see all violence as bad. Some is, some is not. They see the gun as a stark representative of that violence. A gun represents to a Progressive all that is wrong with the world. The violence that the world could shun if all guns were gone. And yet, realizing that it isn't the gun that's the problem, it's the inherent nature of man to act out violently for any number of reasons. So politically and through means of policy they go out of their way to control that which they think is violent and eschew and rail against that which would punish those that are violent. Afterall, in their twisted visions of morals and ethics, guns kill people, not the other way around.

When you have a philosophy and ideology that is essentially backwards and steeped in emotional rhetoric judgment and conviction have no place against another human being for they can, in their progressive minds can be retrained or rehabilitated, a gun cannot. Judge not the violent man, judge that which he chooses to use to focus his violence they would say. They would rather judge an inanimate object because it's easier to deal with, then to deal with the complexity they don't want to deal with that stems from committing violence and those that rely on violence to solve their problems.

They further miss the point by not realizing the benefits of exerting violence to stop even larger volumes of violence. War is a perfect example, but then again you already know how the progressives feel about violence. just my 2 cents.

Furthermore, progressives seek to control guns because they fear them. Most of them have never seen a gun outside of television, never held a gun, much less ever fired a gun. They would probably shit themselves in the process. Even moreso, they seek to control guns because in doing so, they control the users of guns and progressives love to control things, mainly other people and their possessions. If a progressive and institute anti-gun policies, well, then they can exert their will against those that lawfully use guns and in doing so entrench their places in positions of power to further extol how they are superior to the much baser and lesser people, the unwashed dirty masses, because they know better than they do and that they know what's best for others.

Great movie by the way. I was sympathetic to Tracy Flick because even though she was overachieving, she was rightfully cheated because those who couldn't compete or in positions of power used those positions to hold sway over her destiny. You could literally see it when the kid was doing the recount and found the missing ballot(s) how absolutely pissed he was at the teacher for deliberately cheating Tracy Flick out of her win. Even if the kid hated Tracy, what the teacher did was reprehensible because he was in a position of authority and took it upon himself to clumsily decide the outcome.

Tracy's character was sympathetic to me because she was someone who is going to go places because of her merit and hard work, not because of who she knew or who she blew.

Nah, for some of us, the party is only beginning, and will continue for at least four years. Or it never really stopped, Bush Administration notwithstanding. But with regard to the specific party I mentioned (the inauguration), yeah, that's over and I'm back home. Hey, while I was there, I stopped by the Human Rights Campaign gala. Great party, with lots of gay people (present company excepted). Mostly Democrats, though, so you probably wouldn't have enjoyed it as much as I did.

"Nah, for some of us, the party is only beginning, and will continue for at least four years."

Huh. Well hope you enjoy your 'party' on my money, because while you're "partying", most of the rest of the world is going to be going through some rather tough times. Might put a bit of a damper on the festivities. Hope your money's safe! Of course, you probably don't actually have any money to worry about, so of course you're 'partying', your check is almost in the mail, once this latest "stimulus" bill passes.

Of course, you probably don't actually have any money to worry about, so of course you're 'partying', your check is almost in the mail, once this latest "stimulus" bill passes.

Wrong again. Life is still pretty good at Casa Somefeller, despite the recent financial turmoil, which is why I was able to afford to spend a few days in DC. But I'm not going to let my losses in the market (thanks a lot, Dubya and friends) put a damper on having a good time, nor will I spend any more time talking about my personal finances. It's vulgar when people do that, and I wouldn't have done so had you not raised the issue.

Plus, even if the economy is in the toilet for the next few years, that shouldn't prevent people from enjoying themselves as best they can. The 1930s were a good period for music and film in America, after all, economic horrors notwithstanding.

But it sounds like you need a pick-me-up, Palladian. I suggest a nice cocktail, glass of wine or beer, coupled with a cigarette and consumed outside on the porch or the balcony, while taking in the sights of your neighborhood. That always takes the edge off, when I'm feeling a little down.

The New Yorker has a piece by Larissa MacFarquhar that basically says Caroline pulled out of contention because of cold feet. Other reports are saying that she turned "nasty" with Paterson (I don't believe that for a second).

It seems everything from start to finish was slap-dash. From wanting the job, to getting out of it.

"....has endeared her to the powerful politicians who share her impatience to get ahead — including Hillary Clinton, whose seat she’ll take; David Paterson, who appointed her to it; and Chuck Schumer,"

Oh, but the congressional delegation doesn't like her. She will just have to get by with the support of Clinton, Paterson and Schumer. I supposed having them campaign for her will be overshadowed by "Pro-gun-control Long Island Rep. Carolyn McCarthy says she’ll run against Gillibrand to protest the new senator’s pro-gun record and perfect NRA rating. " Because that's what upstate new yorkers are concerned about. Some Long Island Representative bitching about their Senators NRA rating. Good luck with that.

Let me see if I have this right. According to Democrats a female politician is supposed to fold her hands and quietly wait her turn in line?

After reading the "Bedlam Farm" series of dog books by Jon Katz I think I see where Gillibrand is coming from on guns. Katz moves from the Jersey suburbs to a small farm in upstate NY and discovers that whether he likes guns or not he may be called upon to defend his livestock from predators, and to put a suffering animal down humanely -- without spending more for a veterinarian than the value of the animal. In "A Good Dog" he writes eloquently about men so desperately poor that if they didn't hunt successfully their families would not have meat to eat at all. The plight of a poor, but not urban-dwelling, person would never cross the mind of a limousine liberal like the Sulzberger family or the upper West Siders.

I grew up in the district just south of the one she represents (my congressman at the time, Sammy Stratton, probably represented what is now her district.)

NPR had a story on Gillibrand yesterday and it reminded me of my youth; every politician and reporter used "New York" to mean "New York City and it's environs" not "New York State". They spoke as though the only valid concerns were those of New York City, the rest of the state be damned.

Having now lived in Albany for several years, I think Paterson sees this first hand and is responding to it.

I should also add that anyone who pisses off the majority of New York's congressional delegation is very likely an honorable, honest, fantastic person.

We're working on it. If there weren't weird population issues post-Katrina, he'd have been recalled by now (the percentage of votes to do that is based on pre-K voter rolls, while the post-K population is too small to get that done.)

Any ideas how to shut down the Vitter-maker setting on the GOP machine?